Thread:User talk:Rua/Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme/reply (9)

Nostratic as an hypothesis appears to assume an Altaic grouping. Altaic itself is not an accepted theory in mainstream linguistics. Why should I accept a theory that tries to build even older and more far-flung etymologies, starting from such a shaky base?

Addressing specific issues that raise doubts:


 * Greenberg and Dolgopolsky both appear to espouse OJP (ostensibly "container for food/drink") as a cognate of  (sp?).  However, the OJP term is more likely a compound of  + : modern  has a documented ancient meaning of "container for food or drink", with the important addendum that this container was made from tree leaves -- making the compound derivation that much more likely.  Moreover, OJP kasi "oak" in turn is an unlikely candidate for a cognate with the PIE term for "basket", and is more likely to derive from the same origins as OJP root kat- meaning "hard, stiff".
 * Dolgopolsky lists an OJP term of opo-mono as meaning "food"; the only term I'm aware of means "big thing", as a compound of OJP opo "big" + mono "thing".
 * Dolgopolsky lists an OJP term of akuoye "pheasant's spur" as a cognate with a purported Altaic cluster meaning "arrow" and a Nostratic root meaning "sharp point / edge". However, the OJP term is a compound of  +, the stem of ancient verb .  Even ignoring the a- prefix, "to kick" does not appear to have anything to do with "sharp point / edge".
 * Dolgopolsky lists an OJP term of atuo as a purported cognate with an Altaic and Nostratic root meaning "back (of a person)". However, the OJP term is again a compound, originally meaning "footprint" and deriving from  +.

Not everything listed is so clearly wrong. But this degree of mistakenness about OJP calls into question the rigor of the author's approach to all of the terms included. How many other purported cognates are in fact compounds with unrelated etyma? How many are borrowings? How many are accidental resemblances? Etc. etc. Without expertise about each and every language included in the hypothesis, the author cannot evaluate the claims that they themselves are making. That's not a firm foundation on which to build.